Sh. Ravinder Pal Sidhu, Chandigarh V. ACIT, Chandigarh

ITA 703/CHANDI/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 125 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4066 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 year(s) 1 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-08-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 29-03-2018
• Assessment Year: 2002-2003
• Appeal Filed On: 11-06-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: YOGINDER MITTAL
• Assessee Lawyers: NEERAJ ARORA
• Keywords: Additional evidence
• Section: 143(3); 148

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCHB, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SMT. DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.703/CHD/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2002-03 MR. RAVINDER PAL SINGH SIDHU VS. ASST. CIT H.NO. 549, SECTOR-10 CENTRAL CIRCLE-I CHANDIGARH CHANDIGARH PAN NO. ALZPS8914P ITA NO.1296/CHD/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2002-03 MR. RAVINDER PAL SINGH SIDHU VS. ASST. CIT H.NO. 549, SECTOR-10 CENTRAL CIRCLE-I CHANDIGARH CHANDIGARH (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI. NEERAJ ARORA REVENUE BY : SHRI. YOGINDER MITTAL DATE OF HEARING : 16/07/2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 07/08/2018 ORDER PER DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, A.M: BOTH THE ABOVE APPEALS HAVE BEEN FILED BY THE ASSES SEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A)(CENTRAL), GURGAON. 2. WE SHALL DEAL WITH ITA NO. 703/CHD/2013 WHEREIN ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL S), GURGOUN WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DISMISSING THE ADDITIONAL GROUND OF AP PEAL REGARDING REOPENING OF CASE U/S 148 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961. THE REASON S RECORDED FOR REOPENING THE CASE WERE VAGUE AND THE ASSESSMENT WAS REOPENED ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM THE PUNJAB VIGILANCE BUREAU AND WITHO UT INDEPENDENT FORMATION OF BELIEF BY THE AO THAT THE INCOME HAD ESCAPED ASS ESSMENT. 2. THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIR MING THE ADDITION OF RS.7,41,692/- AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME IN RESPECT OF F DR MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. [ 2 3. THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIR MING AN ADDITION OF RS.3,17,000/- MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED INVESTMENT IN AGRICULTURAL LAND. 4. THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIR MING AN ADDITION OF RS.36,50,667/- ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED INVESTMENT IN PURCHASE OF SHARES. THE ADDITION WAS MADE ONLY ON THE BASIS OF REPORT OF VI GILANCE BUREAU PUNJAB. 5. THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIR MING AN ADDITION OF RS. 1,36,00,000/- MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED HAWALA TRANSACTION AND TREATING THE AMOUNT AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE AS SESSE. THE ENTIRE ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE ON THE BASIS OF REPORT OF VIGILANCE B UREAU OF PUNJAB. 3. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE REVISED GROUNDS MA Y BE SUBSTITUTED WITH THE ORIGINAL GROUNDS AND HENCE THE REVISED GROUNDS ARE BEING CONSIDERED FOR ADJUDICATION. 4. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME IN THIS CASE WAS FILED ON 29/03/2005 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME AT RS. 4 ,08,320/- AND AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS. 3,61,888/- ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 1 43(3) WAS COMPLETED AT TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 12,90,178/- VIDE ORDER UNDER SECTION 143(3) DATED 31/03/2005. AGAINST THE ABOVE ORDER OF THE A.O. ASSESSEE WENT I N APPEAL BEFORE THE C.I.T(A). THE LD. CIT(A) IN HIS ORDER NO.1-IT/CIT(A )-1/05-06 DATED 28/03/2006 ALLOWED A RELIEF OF RS. 3,99,500/- TO THE ASSESSEE. THEREAFTER INFORMATION WAS RECEIVED FROM THE PUNJAB VIGILANCE BUREAU, CHANDIGA RH AND ON THE BASIS OF SAID INFORMATION THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS REOPE NED UNDER SECTION 147. 5. LATER, THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED DETERMINING THE TOTAL INCOME AT RS.3,34,57,240/-. 6. THE LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMED ALL THE ADDITIONS EXCEP T THE AMOUNT PERTAINING TO THE INCOME RELEVANT TO THE A.Y. 2003-04 AS TAKEN AT GROUND NO. 5 BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). 7. AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE U S. 3 8. DURING THE HEARING BEFORE US THE LD. AR SUBMITTE D THAT THE ASSESSEES CASE WAS REOPENED UNDER SECTION 148 SOLELY BASED ON THE REPORT OF THE PUNJAB VIGILANCE BUREAU. 9. IT WAS ARGUED SINCE THE INITIATION OF THE PROCEE DINGS WERE BASED ON THE ACTION OF THE PUNJAB VIGILANCE BUREAU AND SINCE THE ORDER OF THE HONBLE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDGE SAS NAGAR, MOHALI HAS BEEN PASSED IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE INVOLVING VIGILANCE BUREAU PUNJAB, POST AP PELLATE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), THE CONTENTS OF THE ORDER OF THE HONBLE COURT MAY BE ADMITTED AS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE UNDER RULE 29 OF THE ITAT RU LES 1963. THE LETTER FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS AS UNDER: THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR DATE: 12/07/2018 THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH CHANDIGARH SUB: FILING OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE UNDER RULE 29 OF APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES, 1963 IN THE CASE OF RAVINDER PAL SINGH SIDHU, A.Y.2002-0 3- ITA NO.703/CHD/13. SIR/MADAM THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT WAS REOPENED U/S 148 OF T HE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ON THE BASIS OF THE REPORT OF VIGILANCE BUREAU PUNJAB. THE ENTIRE ADDITION UNDER DISPUTE WAS MADE ON THE BASIS OF THE SAID REPORT. T HE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSION JUDGE, MOHALI, HAS PASSEDAN ORDER ON 10/01/ 2018 IN THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT. THE SAID ORDER HAS BEEN PASSED IN RESPEC T OF THE CASE FILED BY PUNJAB VIGILANCE BUREAU. THE ORDER HAS BEEN PASSED SUBSEQU ENT TO THE ORDER OF CIT(A) AND IS RELEVANT TO THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE APPELLANT. IT IS THEREFORE REQUESTED THAT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, OUR APPL ICATION FILED UNDER RULE 29 OF INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES,1963 MAY KINDLY BE ADMITTED. COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSION JUDGE, M OHALI IS ENCLOSED. FURTHER THE SAID RULE 29 READS AS UNDER: PRODUCTION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE BEFORE THE TRIBUN AL. 29. THE PARTIES TO THE APPEAL SHALL NOT BE ENTITLED TO PRODUCE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE EITHER ORAL OR DOCUMENTARY BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, BUT IF THE TRIBUNAL REQUIRES ANY DOCUMENT TO BE PRODUCED OR ANY WITNESS TO BE EXAMIN ED OR ANY AFFIDAVIT TO BE FILED TO ENABLE IT TO PASS ORDERS OR FOR ANY OTHER SUBSTANTIAL CAUSE, OR , IF THE INCOME-TAX AUTHORITIES HAVE DECIDED THE CASE WITHOU T GIVING SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO ADDUCE EVIDENCE EITH ER ON POINTS SPECIFIED BY THEM OR NOT SPECIFIED BY THEM, THE TRIBUNAL, FOR RE ASONS TO BE RECORDED, MAY ALLOW SUCH DOCUMENT TO BE PRODUCED OR WITNESS TO BE EXAMINED OR AFFIDAVIT TO BE FILED OR MAY ALLOW SUCH EVIDENCE TO BE ADDUCED. 4 10. LD. SR. DR HAS ARGUED THAT SINCE THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES GO TO THE ROOT CAUSE OF THE MATTER, IN CASE THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENC ES ARE ACCEPTED REVENUE SHOULD GET AN OPPORTUNITY TO EXAMINE THE ISSUES WIT H RELEVANCE TO THE JUDGMENTS. 11. WE FIND THAT THE ORDER OF THE SPECIAL JUDGE SAS NAGAR GOES TO THE ROOT CAUSE OF THE MATTER TO BE ADJUDICATED AND HENCE THE SAME ARE BEING ADMITTED AS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RULE 29 OF THE ITAT RULES 1963. 12. HAVING ADMITTED THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES, SINCE THE REVENUE DID NOT HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY OF GOING THROUGH THE SAID JUDG MENT, THE FILE IS BEING REFERRED TO THE FILE OF LD. CIT(A) TO ADJUDICATE TH E ISSUE AFRESH IN THE LIGHT OF THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE COURT AND TAKE A DECISION IN AC CORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE INCOME TAX ACT,1961. 13. SINCE THE QUANTUM ORDER IS BEING SET ASIDE, THE PENALTY ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) AGITATED VIDE ITA NO. 1296/ CHD/2016 IS ALSO BEING REFERRED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT(A) TO ADJU DICATE THE MATTER AFRESH ON CONCLUSION OF THE PROCEEDINGS IN THE QUANTUM APPEAL . 14. AS A RESULT, BOTH THE ABOVE APPEALS ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- SD/- (DIVA SINGH) (DR. B.R.R. KUMAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 07/08/2018 AG COPY TO: 1.THE APPELLANT, 2.THE RESPONDENT, 3.THE CIT, 4.THE CIT(A), 5. THE DR